I was inspired to write this post yesterday, when I read the notice that Immanuel Wallerstein was retiring once again. This time he is retiring from Yale, from where he has been faithfully posting commentaries about world affairs, month after month with a consistency to which I can only aspire. After all, Wallerstein is currently on blogpost number 373.
In part my absence from blogging can be ascribed to personal factors, I have begun teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, and I have recently been offered my first tenure track job. In the near future, I may also become director of an Africana Studies Program. Besides, possessed of what might only be termed academic ADHD, I have also been adding new projects to my list of responsibilities with reckless speed. However, when one compares oneself, comparisons are truly impossible, with a scholar as prolific as Immanuel Wallerstein such complaints can only sound silly.
Yet, recent events have made it appear appropriate to take stock of where the international order is heading at the moment. The 373rd commentary from Wallerstein paints a picture of the United States and Iran locked in a lose/lose conflict, while the recent article by the FT’s Middle East correspondent Borzou Daragahi on Syria only highlights the extent to which that conflict has become intractable. Putin’s walk into Crimea and the fractioning of the Gulf Cooperation Community, marked by the withdrawal of Saudi and the UAE’s ambassadors from Qatar are also further manifestations that the Obama administration either lacks the will or the ability to marshall its own or its allies power to solve the complex geopolitical problems confronting the world today.
There is a chance that Obama/Kerry are engaging in a momentous series of decisions at the moment, decisions that may finally allow the US to be a positive force in re-imagining the international relations of the Middle East after colonialism and the Cold War. The Geneva talks which concluded last weekend are a significant step in bringing about a new architecture of power and interstate relations in a region whose structures are wearing thin.
As Kenneth Pollack has recently commented the major breakthrough in the talks in Geneva between Iran and P+1 is not so much the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, but the building of confidence between the various parties. Confidence which may eventually lead to Iran being brought “in from the cold.”
In the United States, and much of Western Europe, the 1990s have often been remembered as a decade of triumphant stability, while the expected somnolence of the 2000s too often appeared marred by crises and upheaval. Consequentially, there has been a lot of handwringing amongst historians of the recent past and other political and social prognosticators searching for the moment of change. Questions about whether or not there was a tipping point, when it occurred, and what the transition from stability to instability consisted of, continue to plague writers looking at the last two decades. Yet a partial answer to questions about the location and nature of the point of inflection between stability and instability after the Cold War begins to emerge in Daniel Yergin’s latest book, The Quest.
The Quest for All-encompassing Theories
Enshrouded in the fog of the present, observers turned to competing theories about the nature of great politics within the labyrinth of international relations, to define the sources and to prognosticate the longevity of Western ascendency at the end of the Cold War. Arguments about the durability of the Pax Americana and the triumph of liberal democracies in general were initially framed as a contest of ideas between the triumphalism of Francis Fukayama, best articulated in his 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man, and his fierce debate with his critics from within the political science community, Samuel Huntington and John Mearsheimer.  On the one hand, Fukayama argued that the success of an alliance of liberal democracies, which emerged out of the wreckage of the Second World War, in their decade long struggle with Communism showed decisively that a fundamental truth of human nature was the quest for freedom and the realization of respect for the individual, and that these values could best, and perhaps only be actualized in capitalist, liberal democracies. One of the core implications of Fukayama’s argument was that the very human quest for self-realization would inevitably compel individuals, and consequentially whole societies, to build liberal democratic states, which shared a universal set of core values out of which a new harmonious and cooperative international order could be constructed. 
Looking at events since January 2012, it has at times been hard to tell if we are witnessing a simple pricing dispute or a total divorce between the newest neighbors in northeast Africa.
There is some truth to Alex De Waal’s recent statement at the Royal Africa Society that “it all looked so good just over a year ago.” A year ago there was a euphoria of independence, but few hard decisions had been made about the future relationship of the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan. Omar al-Bashir, and a cadre of his close associates within the National Congress Party, surely believed that they would be rewarded with a peace dividend for their decision to allow the South to progress smoothly towards independence; while, the leaders and people of South Sudan, nestled securely within the warm glow of international applause celebrating the victory of their liberation struggle, undoubtedly believed that the exercise of sovereignty was the first step on a long journey towards a better standard of living and national self-respect. Continue reading →
As 2011 comes to a close it is time to reflect on the year. What have we learned about world politics and what still eludes us? Without a doubt the principle dramas of 2011 concerned revolution and political turmoil. And the unrest unfolding throughout the year has again and again caught even the most sure-footed analysts off balance. While, we all knew that the Mubarak regime had to end, who last January could predict that the regime would crumble so easily and so soon?
Why were we so often wrong and caught off guard? What about the ways in which we see the world has held true and what has been proven false? One way of getting at this problem is to refer back to the questions and assumptions we asked about the revolutions and uprisings of 2011 during the year that has just ended. We have to ask how and why we framed our discussion of the events of 2011 in the ways we did? Continue reading →
Qatar has signed new trade and investment deals with the Sudanese government in a wide variety of fields. Qatari investors have shown a particular interest in the real estate sector, mineral/mining sectors, agricultural sector and infrastructure construction. Qatari investment in Sudan currently stands at approximately $ 1 billion dollars, but the World Bank estimates that this investment may soon rise to nearly $ 4 billion dollars. Rising Qatari investment will be particularly decisive in the Sudanese manufacturing and agricultural sectors.
ولم يستبعد الطيب ارتفاع حجم الاستثمارات القطرية إلى نحو 4 مليارات دولار أميركي، متوقعا في الوقت ذاته أن تلعب استثمارات قطر دورا محوريا خاصة في قطاعات الزراعة والصناعة
It has become common for the foreign policy elite to think of Omar El-Bashir–the dancing dictator– as a fool, idiot or a buffoon. See the video for an illustration of New York Times coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bXb5_WWtCQ
Or just witness the recent references to Omar El-Bashir in Condelezza Rice’s memoirs. In the excerpts released to the press, Secretary Rice says of El-Bashir that, “he looked as though he was on drugs.” When the image of El-Bashir as a buffoon is combined with his status as a fugitive from the International Criminal Court: wanted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide, it becomes easy to dismiss El-Bashir, and by association the ruling NCP, as little more than an incompetent, backwards and irrational ruling junta with no strategic vision–except, perhaps, of the most vindictive and vicious nature, usually directed against its own citizens. (None of this is to argue that the NCP has not committed horrible crimes, usually against its own people, or even that Bashir’s regime has governed well.) Yet, the solidification of caricatures is always dangerous, especially when the caricature itself becomes the explanation.
Can a statelet be a regional power? Does size or population matter if a state possesses wealth? And if not at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, what are the sources of power and authority in the international system? Have we entered a world where even a lonely city-state can leverage the resources necessary to shape regional or global events?
The strange rise of Qatar as a regional actor has restored to center stage questions about the types of power that different kinds of actors can marshal within the international system.